Anyone who listens to country radio knows this isn’t a riddle, but the chorus of a song by Brad Paisley—Alcohol. Though the song itself is a light-hearted tribute to booze, these few words are a testament to the seriousness behind the subject. Relationships broken. Lowered inhibitions. Expressions of community. Loss of control.

For all the fun that songs, beer commercials, and barbeques promise, an icy-cold one can lead to grief and loss. It’s no small wonder that the Bible contains so many warnings about wine and “strong drink.” Any article on the subject would do well to recite Proverbs 20:1—Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

With so many Biblical warnings, it’s no small wonder that many within Baptistdom consider drinking alcohol to be somewhere in the top three of the seven deadly sins. Whole books are written on it and blog debates rage fiercely.

As embarrassing as it is to admit that some church members occasionally (or frequently) drink, it is downright scandalous for a church minister to admit to the practice. In fact, many churches have members sign a covenant with a specific clause about abstaining from alcohol. In our church both deacons and pastors have to agree to avoid the stuff. And every semester I have to sign code of conduct prior to taking classes at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Sinful?

While institutions can do what they want, I’m afraid we’ve created an environment where we have knowingly and willingly allowed those who are “weak in faith” to bind the consciences of those who are not.

I believe the question of whether one chooses to enjoy alcoholic beverages or not is a matter of Christian liberty. Here’s why, and I’ll summarize the argument as best as I can: Romans 14:21.

“It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.”

The meat here could be meat in general, or specifically meat sacrificed to idols. As you may recall from your Bible reading, the question of whether it was a sin or not to partake of meat that had been sacrificed to idols was a big one in the early Church. Paul addressed it extensively in 1 Corinthians and here in Romans.

Paul emphatically states that eating meat that has been sacrificed to an idol is not sinful in and of itself. He says in Romans 14:14, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.”

Yet having recognized that there is nothing wrong with eating it, Paul still says it is perfectly fine to abstain from eating it for the sake of a “weak” Christian brother whose conscience won’t allow him to eat it. In 1 Corinthians Paul mentions that this is because the Christian brother lacks knowledge (see 1 Cor. 8:7).

So Paul encourages other believers to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols not because it is sinful to do so, but because of the conscience of another believer. And either way, Paul doesn’t mind if a believer eats meat sacrificed to idols or abstains, so long as each is “fully convinced in his own mind” because, “The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God” (Rom. 14:5-6). Paul’s call here, then, is not a call for total abstention, but to be considerate of the conscience of others.

THEREFORE, what we see here is that Paul places alcoholic beverages in the same category as meat sacrificed to idols. (I have yet to hear of someone who believes the wine [oinos] in this verse is anything other than an alcoholic beverage, such as unfermented grape juice that was sacrificed to an idol and then sold at market.)

“It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.”

A Bound Conscience

As I’ve mentioned before, I memorized the book of Titus. It is fascinating that nowhere in Titus or anywhere else in the New Testament does Paul prohibit people from joining the church or from serving as leaders because they ate meat sacrificed to an idol.

Given that this was such a hot issue back in Paul’s day, what does that say about alcohol in ours?

By forcing people to sign covenants with an alcohol clause in order to join the church or serve as leadership, we are essentially binding the consciences of other believers. If Joe enjoys a beer on Sunday afternoon, which he drinks in the privacy of his home, should we take away his Christian liberty by making him give that up in order to enjoy the benefits of church membership?

The situation is delicate, and this is not a perfect solution, but I think we should employ a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy concerning alcohol use and church membership/leadership. It is one thing to encourage a brother to willingly not exercise his liberty (or to practice it discretely). It is something else entirely to force him to give it up to enjoy the privileges of membership.

By “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I mean that if a person chooses to drink alcohol he attempt to do so without drawing attention to himself. This doesn’t mean other believers shouldn’t get involved if there is suspicion of the abuse of alcohol, and there is nothing wrong with asking a pastoral candidate if he believes drinking alcohol is a sin, and if not, if he can either abstain from it or practice it discretely. But we should leave each Christian to act according to the dictates of his or her conscience and the Spirit’s leading.

I also mean that a person who chooses to drink should not advertise or flaunt that decision. That was one of Paul’s big concerns here concerning meat sacrificed to idols. Doing so could potentially damage another’s conscience and thus become a stumbling block both to believers and to unbelievers (see 1 Cor. 9:22). An individual who flaunts his freedom would not be a good candidate for leadership in ministry and should receive some counseling along the same lines that Paul presents in his letters.

Yet, even if it is suspected or discovered that a person moderately drinks alcohol, we should not deny him or her the privileges of church membership or ministry leadership, especially if the discovery is made known through gossip. In truth, the one who chooses to enjoy alcohol and the one who chooses to abstain are both welcomed into fellowship with God. Let’s welcome them into our fellowship as well:

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. (2) One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. (3) Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.”

Romans 14:1-3

**Disclaimer** I fully recognize that in certain contexts Christians must put aside their liberty to be able to reach the local populace (e.g. eating beef in India, pork in Saudi Arabia, or drinking alcohol in Dearborne (a high-density Muslim population in Michigan).

I really appreciate D. A. Carson’s words on this issue. He says this is NOT a weaker brother/weaker conscience issue. A Christian is not allowed to say, “I have a weaker conscience, therefore you must not drink.” It is nothing other than repackaged legalism. The fact is that the people making these arguments (anti-alcohol) do not have weak consciences and in fact they claim to be the stronger brothers.

And so if I were to drink, I would not abide by a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. It is not a stumbling block to non-Christians. It’s simply quaint to them. Like the Mennonites nearby where we live that refuse to have chrome wheels on any vehicles they drive. It’s not a stumbling block to new believers. In fact, rules like this lack any real value in restraining sensual indulgence, I seem to remember it says somewhere.

The only people who get their panties in a wad are the legalistic pharisees among us who seem to have forgotten what our Lord Jesus Christ said: Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’

And so for those who choose to enjoy wine or other alcoholic drink, take to heart the words of Psalm 104, which speak of the glory of God’s creation:

He makes grass grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate—
bringing forth food from the earth:
wine that gladdens the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread that sustains his heart.

I appreciate your weighing in on this issue. We were discussing the passages in 1 Corinthians in class yesterday and (oddly enough), gambling and going to a casino gathered more discussion than alcohol (though it was certainly close).

One question we didn’t get to (but most certainly will next week) was, “What is the difference between a Christian who is weak and whose conscience could be hurt and a Christian who is legalistic and demanding?”

The problem is, most of the things I think are sinful for me to do I think are sinful for others to do as well. And if I am convinced of this, yet in actuality it is a matter of Christian liberty, does that make me a legalist or a brother whose conscience is weak? The same would go for someone who sincerely believes that drinking alcohol is a sin.

The only problem I’ve run into with this line of reasoning is where do you draw the line. I know sincere believers who feel it is a sun to use plastic bags at the grocery store because it harms the environment and who don’t eat fast food because of the high fat and sodium content that harms the body (I might need to listen to that one though). For things that are not explicitly forbidden by scripture, I have learned to allow my brothers and sisters liberty even if I think it is wrong for me.

One key aspect that must play a part eventually is that of biblical instruction and discipleship. Unfortunately, usually when someone says, “I believe X is a sin,” we first pursue the knowledge route, thinking we should try to convince someone that something is okay, when we should actually pursue the love route first, even if that means giving up something for the moment.

Eventually though, there should be teaching and discipleship on the issues. In the instance of paper or plastic, it is important to go back to the Bible and try to discern if it is a matter of Christian liberty or not. Even if the person believes it is a sin, we should go back to the bible and determine if it is an issue worth breaking fellowship over.

Eventually we would want both the weak and stronger brother to be able to comply with Romans 14:3 “Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.”

You said, “The problem is, most of the things I think are sinful for me to do I think are sinful for others to do as well.”

Do you think the stumbling written of in Romans 14 is about seeing another partake of something that one believes is sin and is just bothered by it? Or, is it that the person seeing the action thinks it is sin and is then tempted to also partake?

The stumbling in Romans 14, I believe, is primarily referring to the person seeing the action and then being tempted to act contrary to his conscience.

However, the person described in the first half of the chapter doesn’t appear to be tempted to act against conscience as much as he is bothered by his brother’s apparent sinful (or weak) action (see v.1-3).

On a side note, in 1 Cor. 10:27-29, the issue is obviously not about causing someone else to partake of something they consider sinful, so Paul is not just referring to a believer who is tempted when addressing the topic of meat sacrificed to idols.

We agree on the issue is about someone being tempted to act contrary to his conscience. Some teetotalers seem to use this section of Romans 14 to say – you shouldn’t drink around me because I think it’s wrong and I don’t like it – while not being the least bit tempted to drink themselves.

Verses 1-3 do not speak to the issue of tempting another to sin, I agree. Given the full context it is an admonition for the weak and strong to not pass judgment on each other rather than to not partake of something all together.

I agree that in 1 Cor. 10:27-29 Paul is not just referring to believers being tempted. He is also giving instruction toward something in a case where it actually happens rather than it potentially happening. (I’m making a point here not replying specifically to what you’ve said.) Paul seems to say to enjoy all things freely to the glory of God.

Side note: According to 1 Cor. 10:27-29, shouldn’t a teetotaler who is served wine in an unbelievers home at dinner (provided he is not allergic or a former addict) simply drink “without raising any question on the ground of conscience”?

It is nice to see that I’m not alone with these convictions. Regarding the teetotaler who is served alcohol, I think there could be a number of reasons to either accept or deny the offer. At least in Paul’s example the issue isn’t the meat, but where it came from. With alcohol, it isn’t that easy, since where it came from is secondary, and what it is is obvious with the first sip.

Here are some situations that would make it difficult to accept:

1) In an environment where it is likely people will overindulge. I know of somebody who drank a glass of wine at year-end office party and regretted it because some patrons proceeded to play beer-pong and get a little tipsy. He felt that by drinking earlier he had condoned their behavior later.

2) The unbeliever believes it is a sin for Christians to drink. Even if the unbeliever has no qualms about it, he could be trying to trap you and accuse you of wrongdoing.

3) Word getting out could damage your reputation. This, I think, is one of the main reasons most pastors choose not to drink. If someone is known as a teetotaler, choosing to drink could be considered hypocrisy.

Sometimes the issue of addiction arises when dealing with alcohol. It begins with the first sip or a person was saved and the Spirit took away the drive that an alcoholic has. By focusing on the alcohol issue we seldom focus on other areas that control the person. Funny thing, I have never seen an overweight person come to Christ and the drive for food be brought under control. What deacon would volunteer to teach that to the new convert? Or their diet Coke habit goes away like the alcohol. Only the things that have become vices from what we preached against decades ago became overindulgences and sin. Most sinners know all about what most churches don’t believe in or condone. Self control is a hard sermon to preach and when you have to say that there are areas I have to bring under control myself, it nixes the message.
Now let’s talk about modesty, no tattoos, submission, make-up, long hair on women…………

Great post! This is something I was wrestling w/ yesterday as I researched seminaries to go to. Southern is high on my list and I noticed its policy. I find it a bit discouraging to see leaders whom I highly respect who have taken an approach that suggests that: (1) we’re not going to call it sin, but if you consume it we will treat you as if it were, (2) because many people in the sbc see the issue this way you will not be able to find a job anyways, so you better not… What if we took that approach w/ television,e.g. People who watch television could see something that causes them to sin(lustful thoughts) and those who watch television could fall into lazy/slothful habits; therefore, we’re just going to say that it isn’t a sin, but if you watch it you should expect to loose your job. What about cars? Does anybody in the sbc speed? Shouldn’t we agree not to drive too? Okay, maybe I’m being silly, but you get my point. Shouldn’t we be preaching Christ?

It is a challenge, and as I argue above, unnecessary. There is a difference between a code of conduct and a statement of beliefs, but it is more semantics than anything.

I don’t know if other schools have similar codes of conduct, and for a non-traditional online student, the temptation to break the rules is higher. I think that if you can live without it, Southern would be a great place to go.